Google Groups has a new interface (which looks like Google Reader). They
seem to have lifted that restriction along with the unveiling of the new
interface. It's been around for a few months. I guess they're distancing
themselves from their Usenet roots, i.e. no longer keeping their own
interna
Sorry, OT:
On 11 Aug., 16:56, Keshav Kini wrote:
> Sorry for the necropost.
How did you manage that?
At least Google's web interface refused a mailing list reply (to a
thread of Feb/March 2011!) recently; it only gave me the option to
directly reply to the author (without any explanation btw.,
Sorry for the necropost. After talking to William I posted a patch at #3052,
if someone wants to take a look. It doesn't export the repository as diffs,
but as the more simplistic patches Mercurial actually uses internally
(consisting of a series, per changeset per file, of ranges to delete and
Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On May 2, 2008, at 2:39 AM, mabshoff wrote:
>
>> On Apr 29, 7:14 am, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 12:53 AM, mabshoff
>>
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I've made a trac ticket for this, since it seems to have got stalled:
>>>
>>>http://tr
On May 2, 2008, at 2:39 AM, mabshoff wrote:
> On Apr 29, 7:14 am, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 12:53 AM, mabshoff
>
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've made a trac ticket for this, since it seems to have got stalled:
>>
>>http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/305
On Apr 29, 7:14 am, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 12:53 AM, mabshoff
> Hi,
>
> I've made a trac ticket for this, since it seems to have got stalled:
>
> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/3052
>
> William
Robert,
I have come across a case that
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 12:53 AM, mabshoff
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Apr 22, 9:41 am, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > On Apr 21, 2008, at 11:34 AM, mabshoff wrote:
>
>
> > > The number of bundles in trac is rather small and most of those
> > > bundles either have rev
On Apr 22, 9:41 am, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Apr 21, 2008, at 11:34 AM, mabshoff wrote:
> > The number of bundles in trac is rather small and most of those
> > bundles either have review issues or shouldn't be bundles in the first
> > place [as you stated above], so applyin
On Apr 21, 2008, at 11:34 AM, mabshoff wrote:
> On Apr 21, 8:24 pm, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> On Apr 21, 2008, at 11:14 AM, William Stein wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
Yes, I could. This would mean that no pre-3.0 bundles would
apply to
post-3.0 (short of re-basing the
On Apr 21, 2008, at 11:47 AM, John Cremona wrote:
> Sorry if this is a stupid question: if you are going to make a new
> complete repository with a patched version of mercurial, does that
> mean that native mercurial installations will not work with Sage from
> now on, only Sage's "own" version?
Sorry if this is a stupid question: if you are going to make a new
complete repository with a patched version of mercurial, does that
mean that native mercurial installations will not work with Sage from
now on, only Sage's "own" version?
John
2008/4/21 Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
On Apr 21, 2008, at 11:34 AM, mabshoff wrote:
> On Apr 21, 8:24 pm, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> On Apr 21, 2008, at 11:14 AM, William Stein wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
Yes, I could. This would mean that no pre-3.0 bundles would
apply to
post-3.0 (short of re-basing the
On Apr 21, 8:24 pm, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Apr 21, 2008, at 11:14 AM, William Stein wrote:
Hi,
> >> Yes, I could. This would mean that no pre-3.0 bundles would apply to
> >> post-3.0 (short of re-basing the bundles--and the big one (coercion)
> >> I could rebase mys
On Apr 21, 2008, at 11:14 AM, William Stein wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 11:06 AM, Robert Bradshaw
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Apr 21, 2008, at 10:53 AM, William Stein wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 10:51 AM, mabshoff
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
>>>
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 11:06 AM, Robert Bradshaw
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Apr 21, 2008, at 10:53 AM, William Stein wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 10:51 AM, mabshoff
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >>
> >>> Could you "rebase" the entire Sage repo so it
On Apr 21, 2008, at 10:53 AM, William Stein wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 10:51 AM, mabshoff
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>>> Could you "rebase" the entire Sage repo so it has the new hashes,
>>> then included
>>> it for Sage-3.0 :-) If we're going to make a massive change
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 10:51 AM, mabshoff
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
> > Could you "rebase" the entire Sage repo so it has the new hashes, then
> included
> > it for Sage-3.0 :-) If we're going to make a massive change like
> > that, 3.0 would
> > be the time to do it. Or does
Hi,
> Could you "rebase" the entire Sage repo so it has the new hashes, then
> included
> it for Sage-3.0 :-) If we're going to make a massive change like
> that, 3.0 would
> be the time to do it. Or does that request make no sense?
We will likely have the same problem every time we merge hea
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 10:32 AM, Robert Bradshaw
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Apr 21, 2008, at 7:12 AM, William Stein wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 4:49 PM, Robert Bradshaw
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> I've looked into this some more and it looks like we can comple
On Apr 21, 2008, at 7:12 AM, William Stein wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 4:49 PM, Robert Bradshaw
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> I've looked into this some more and it looks like we can completely
>> reconstruct a repository from the export of all its keywords. The
>> trick is to use th
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 4:49 PM, Robert Bradshaw
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I've looked into this some more and it looks like we can completely
> reconstruct a repository from the export of all its keywords. The
> trick is to use the --exact keyword when importing. This forces it to
> appl
I've looked into this some more and it looks like we can completely
reconstruct a repository from the export of all its keywords. The
trick is to use the --exact keyword when importing. This forces it to
apply the given patch to the correct parent (sometimes creating a new
head) and will a
22 matches
Mail list logo
